Forum Discussion

Katiebee's avatar
Katiebee
Level 4
10 years ago

Vault only using 2 out of 4 drives

Hi all,

I have recently upgraded the tape library we use to do our weekly DR Vault from 2 to 4 tape drives, but I am having trouble getting the Vault process to use 4 tape drives simultaneously. 

I have created the touch file VLT_MAXIMIZE_DRIVE_UTILIZATION_FOR_DISK in the Bin folder in the install location; I have checked that all of these drives are in the appropriate storage group, and that they all work. If I restart the Vault job, it is a different combination of drives that end up being used but it still only picks 2 out of the 4. Interestingly, if I try to run another vault job it will not use the two remaining drives but will advise that the resource limit has been reached (but this could be because the duplication lock cannot be assigned to the second job.)

In the Host properties the maximum vault jobs is set to 50, but I think this means the parent vault jobs rather than the number of concurrent batches for each vault.

The job advises it's doing 29 batches, 4 start but 2 of the spawned jobs advise they are awaiting resources, there are plenty of blank tapes in the library for it to use, the job even has one allocated, it shows >

awaiting resource MediaServer3-hcart-robot-tld-1 A pending request has been generated for this resource request.

             Operator action may be required. Pending Action: No action.,

             Media ID: DR0489, Barcode: DR0489, Density: hcart, Access Mode: Write,

             Action Drive Name: N/A, Action Media Server: MediaServer3, Robot Number: N/A, Robot Type: NONE,

             Volume Group: 000_00001_TLD, Action Acs: N/A, Action Lsm: N/A

In the above you can see the Storage unit resource that has been requested is MediaServer3, I have checked the other running batches and they all have different Storage unit resources requested so I don't think it's that? Is there somewhere something which is telling the vault to only process so much at a time as I am at a loss as to where else to look.

I am using Netbackup 7.5.0.6, the master server is Win 2003, as are 3 of the media servers, with one media server being Win 2008 Standard.

 

Any help would be appreciated

  • Unless I've lost the plot, these two drives ... their serial numbers do not appear as listed in one of the robots.
    Therefore NBU will be unable to work out that they are robotic.

    Drive Name              Drive006
    Index                   6
    SCSI coordinates        {5,0,28,0}
    Type                    hcart
    Status                  UP
    SCSI Protection         SR (Global)
    Shared Access           Yes
    TLD(1) Definition DRIVE=1
    Serial Number           C38D27D000

    Drive Name              Drive009
    Index                   9
    SCSI coordinates        {5,0,31,0}
    Type                    hcart
    Status                  UP
    SCSI Protection         SR (Global)
    Shared Access           Yes
    TLD(1) Definition DRIVE=4
    Serial Number           C38D27D00C


    So, for example, from the scan output on RCH, one of the robots looks like this, which I think is TLD(1).

    Inquiry    : "QUANTUM Scalar i40-i80  172G"
    Vendor ID  : "QUANTUM "
    Product ID : "Scalar i40-i80  "
    Product Rev: "172G"
    Serial Number: "QUANTUMD1H0031B11_LLA"
    Number of Drives : 4
    Number of Slots  : 50
    Number of Media Access Ports: 5
    Drive 1 Serial Number      : "HU1340YK5B"
    Drive 2 Serial Number      : "C38D27D004"
    Drive 3 Serial Number      : "C38D27D008"
    Drive 4 Serial Number      : "HU1310UY4M"

    scan output is sent from the robot, so the robot is telling us it has x4 drives, but as you see, the serial numbers of the two drives I have listed are not there.

    This is an issue on the library, the scan output is the result of a scsi command sent yto the library, ie. we ask, 'what drives do you have', and we seem to be getting back the wrong information.

    The other possibility is that the robot info is correct, but the drives on the media server are reporting incorrect serial numbers, but I think this is less likely.

26 Replies